• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

    The only surprise is the Council determining the outcome to its internal investigation so quickly, but other than that there are no revelations, i.e., it's a complete load of bo!!ock$:

    From: Hanmer, Peter
    To: outlawlgo
    Cc: Maione, Tony ; Res - Customer Services
    Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016
    Subject: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

    Dear Mr outlawlgo

    As set out in previous correspondence from Mr Maione, the Council’s monitoring officer, the audit team has now reviewed the allegations contained in your email to me dated 22 April 2016 under the auspices of the Council’s whistleblowing policy. A review of all relevant correspondence, court papers and interviews with key officers has taken place as part of this process. It has been concluded that the actions taken by officers regarding your Council Tax account were correct based on the information and correspondence made available to them at the time, and we have found no evidence that any fraudulent activity has taken place.

    I note your comments around the complaints policy and the fraud response plan in relation to the handling of complaints involving allegations of fraud and corruption and these will be considered when the Council updates both policies during 2016/17.

    Kind regards

    Peter Hanmer

    Peter Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect
    Municipal Buildings, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 3HU
    Telephone (01472) 323799 peter.hanmer@NLBusinessConnect.co.uk

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

      Literally, persona non grata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

        Can't help thinking that this person had too much to lose (like his contract), by properly conducted the investigation, hence why it was a sham.

        Peter Hanmer CPFA CMIIA

        Financial Services
        Current Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect

        Experience

        Head of Audit and Assurance

        Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect
        April 2016 – Present (3 months)

        Member of the management team of Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect which provides a range of support services (including ICT, HR, Financial Services, legal, audit) to public organisations in Northern Lincolnshire including two unitary councils.

        As Head of Audit and Assurance I am responsible for leading a team of 23 staff providing internal audit, risk management, insurance, anti fraud and governance assurance and support. In particular I am the Chief Internal Auditor at both North lLincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

          From: outlawlgo
          To: Hanmer, Peter ; Res - Customer Services
          Cc: various
          Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016
          Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

          Dear Mr Hanmer

          It won't come as any surprise that I am completely dissatisfied with your response and consider it wholly unacceptable. Though I anticipated the council's dealing with the matter would be a sham, that makes it no less acceptable.

          Of course, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support your decision because it would be impossible to do so as you are contending, without any grounds, the concrete evidence provided you which is not only beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.

          The decision is simply indefensible and the fact that the guilty parties have been protected by the process is evident that the [redacted].

          It is the role of the Council's Monitoring Officer to report on matters he believes are, or are likely to be illegal and is responsible to ensure that the Council, its Officers and elected members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Clearly by turning a blind eye in this matter he has failed in discharging his statutory duty, causing not only gross injustice to me as the taxpayer affected by continual harassment of officers pursuing a vendetta, but has also resulted in damaging the reputation of the Council.

          Officers should not, but are being allowed to abuse their positions in pursuit of personal vendettas, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, over a relatively insignificant sum which in any event has been criminally engineered as a debt that is not owed by those officers purely for their own perverse satisfaction. There is no place within a local authority for individuals of this kind and it is of paramount importance that when such practices are highlighted, the person within the council with responsibility acts on the information by dismissing those guilty and has the matter reported to the police.

          Separate but related issue

          There is another failure of the Monitoring Officer discharging his statutory duty, which until now has not been dealt with, but nevertheless needs investigating as it has had a material impact on the present issues. The matter relates to 2013 when [redacted], as Monitoring Officer was the person responsible for ensuring that the Council's decision making was within the law.

          Background

          Grimsby Magistrates Court had been obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of NELC's application for a council tax liability order. It was looking unlikely that the court would produce the document as was required for the case to continue because of the failure to cooperate.

          In line with pre-action protocol for a claim for mandatory order, alternative remedies were suggested in an email to the Justices' Clerk with the council copied in on 6 February 2013 (see attached). In the case of the council, the remedy suggested was to apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for £60 obtained on the 2nd November 2012, or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made that was equal to the sum that had already been paid (in respect of reasonable costs).

          On 8 February 2013 (also attached) the council replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it claimed it had been correctly obtained.

          I disputed this in a letter dated 14 February 2013 (attached) on the grounds that the application should have ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority was paid. In any event, the letter dated 5 February 2013 attached the email (6 February 2013), pointed out that the court issued a liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their decision. Consequently, one of the questions in law asked in the application was whether the costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence from the council to support them.

          We now know that they shouldn't have; it was unlawful to award costs without proof of how they had been arrived at. This has been confirmed in the case between Tottenham Magistrates and the Reverend Paul Nicolson (see case attached). It was therefore incorrect for the council to state in its letter of 8 February 2013 that the liability order had been correctly obtained (See para 61 in R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), attached):
          " 61. This application for judicial review of the decision taken by the Magistrates must therefore succeed. I was told that since the hearing the order for costs against the Claimant has been withdrawn, but that does not render the proceedings academic; as I have said, it raises issues of wider public importance. Had the order not been withdrawn, I would have quashed it. Since it has been withdrawn, I will declare that the order was unlawful, because:

          i) the Magistrates did not have sufficient relevant information before them to reach a proper judicial determination of whether the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; "

          Moreover, the council has since produced a calculation which proves that expenditure it was claiming was not actually incurred by the council in respect of my case. It is evident from the breakdown that those costs were attributable to activities such as officers who engaged with customers (telephone calls etc) to negotiate payment arrangements and to monitor them, and therefore completely irrelevant to my case and unlawfully claimed.

          It was the person appointed Monitoring Officer at that time who was responsible for the decision made not to apply to the Magistrates court as suggested in the pre-action protocol as informed in the 8 February 2013 letter on the basis that the liability order had been correctly obtained.

          Consequences

          This failure to apply lawful and proportionate decision making, hence not taking the correct remedy has led to years of injustice as it has enabled the Council to misallocate payment to the sum subject to appeal when payments have clearly been intended for the year's council tax account which was current when paid. Having balances outstanding for different years and the opportunity that has given the council to engineer payment arrears, this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the proceedings considered here. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

          Objective

          I would like in addition to having a proper response, with names of those involved in the investigation and findings properly documented, that this correspondence serves as a formal complaint about the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer and all others involved in the investigation process. Naturally as my complaint alleges irregularity, my expectation is that in accordance with the Council's 'Fraud Response Plan' the matter is referred to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately on receipt, despite those who may be referred the matter being some of the officers (elected members) who are the complaint's focus.

          Yours sincerely

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

            From: Hanmer, Peter
            To: outlawlgo ; Res - Customer Services
            Cc: various
            Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016
            Subject: RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

            Dear Mr outlawlgo,

            Thank you for your email. I can confirm that a detailed investigation was carried out by members of the audit and assurance team and its work was reviewed by myself. As per my correspondence dated 23 June we have made our position clear, based on the evidence of the review, and will not be corresponding any further on the issue.

            Kind regards

            Peter Hanmer

            Peter Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect
            Municipal Buildings, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 3HU
            Telephone (01472) 323799 peter.hanmer@NLBusinessConnect.co.uk

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

              Rossendales turned up today. Whoever it was, presumably Keith Grice, managed to get through the security door without me letting him in (flats with security system).

              There is no breakdown of debt, fees etc, only a total (£521) and no time of visit. However, he is good enough to allow me (even at this late stage) to pay what I DON'T OWE in instalments.

              FOR NON PAYMENT OF COUNCIL TAX / NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC
              RATES / ROAD TRAFFIC TMA
              ENFORCEMENT AGENT ATTENDANCE

              I have attended today with the intention of Taking Control of your goods to discharge the above debt.

              AMOUNT OUTSTANDING £ 521.0O

              If you cannot pay this amount in full you should be aware that even at this late stage with an initial payment of £50.00 you can still pay by installments.
              You may pay by Postal Order, Cash, Bank Draft or Debit/Credit Card.

              Payment should be made direct to the Enforcement Agent below to avoid unnecessary action
              DO NOT DISREGARD THIS NOTICE

              Enforcement Agent in Charge: KEITH GRICE

              Contact Number: 07515050577

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                An excellent notice and one that demonstrates very clearly that even at this very late stage, it is possible to set up a payment arrangement with Rossendales by making a initial payment of just 10% of the debt.

                It may well be the case that you consider that you do not owe the debt. That is of no consequence at all to the enforcement agent. He cannot go 'behind' the Liability Order and his role is now to enforce the debt.

                PS: The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 provides a range of statutory notices that must be used by the enforcement company. If an enforcement agent attends a property and is unable to make contact with the debtor (as appears to have happened here) the regulations do not provide for a statutory notice to be left. Each company will draft their own 'advisory notice'. Accordingly, there is no requirement to provide a breakdown of fees or provide a time and date that the visit was made.

                I cannot see any fault at all with this advisory notice. No doubt you will though.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                  Incidentally, It might be worth noting that no element whatsoever of my payments made since the account has been with Rossendales has been diverted to the £310 which has accrued so far in bailiff charges.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                    From: [outlawlgo]
                    To: enquiries@rossendales.com
                    Cc: Various
                    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
                    Subject: Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956


                    Dear Sir/Madam

                    Re: Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956


                    Recovery Officers at North East Lincolnshire Council have engaged in a vendetta that has and continues to waste resources of numerous public services costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those responsible are clearly abusing their positions and wouldn't think twice about using any means available to further their campaign. Clearly they see Rossendales as a way of doing this by having its bailiffs harass me to attempt recovery of a debt which the council only has permission to enforce as a result of misleading the court by submitting false evidence.

                    It is worth pointing out that the vendetta was sparked off by my objection to the council's mishandling of a complaint a number of years ago into Rossendales application of several hundred pounds in fees for such things as phantom visits, levying randomly on a vehicle in a residential car park (surprisingly not owned by myself) and negligently handling sensitive personal information relating to enforcement.

                    North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales knowing full well that none of its bailiffs will be successful in obtaining any monies from myself and so the work undertaken amounting to £310 accruing so far in fees will have to be written off.

                    Despite not owing the debt, I do happen to know that the success of a bailiff obtaining fees from the debtor relies solely on the taxpayer being unaware that there is no obligation to engage with the enforcement company.

                    I suggest that if Rossendales want to recover its losses it does so by demanding compensation from those officers at the council who have abused their position by instructing Rossendales to further their personal vendetta.


                    Yours sincerely

                    Comment


                    • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                      Final threatening letter; Rossendales "FINAL REMINDER - DO NOT IGNORE"

                      It must be because the police have orders from the top to turn a blind eye to whatever local authorities get up to that they think they can get away with adding spurious fees (or threatening to). Consequently, even though no goods have been taken control of (unless a random car has), they're threatening that i'll be immediately liable for further enforcement costs (£110) when the Enforcement Agent attends (total £420). With the unwarranted summons costs of £120, they are demanding a total £540 that is not owed.

                      Rossendales
                      PO Box 324
                      Rossendale
                      BB4 0GE


                      Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax
                      Outstanding Amount: £521.00
                      Reference Number: 550xxxxx
                      Our Reference: 28628956
                      Date: 11th July 2016

                      FINAL REMINDER - DO NOT IGNORE

                      Dear outlawlgo

                      North East Lincolnshire Council amount £211.00
                      Enforcement Costs incurred £310.00
                      Paid £0.00
                      Total Amount Due: £521.00
                      Despite previous correspondence you have not made payment to clear the overdue balance above.

                      When the Enforcement Agent attends with the intention to take control of and remove your goods for the purpose of sale you will be immediately liable for further enforcement costs as detailed on the back of this letter.

                      In order to avoid the removal of your goods you must contact us immediately on 0844 701 3980

                      NO FURTHER REMINDERS WILL BE ISSUED

                      Please ensure that all correspondence/payments quote our-reference number and your name and address.

                      Yours Faithfully

                      Enforcement Agent Manager
                      Last edited by outlawlgo; 15th July 2016, 19:48:PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                        Complaint acknowledgement from Rossendales – complete surprise as one hasn't been submitted. They obviously mistook advice to claim compensation off the council as a complaint.

                        Date: 13 July 2016

                        Dear Sir/Madam,


                        North East Lincolnshire Council C Tax - TCE

                        Thank you for letting us know about your concerns.

                        We are sorry to learn that you are not happy. We take the concerns you have raised very seriously and will look into them carefully.

                        We will give your complaint our full attention and make sure that it is dealt with by someone with the right knowledge and experience.

                        We will investigate your concerns and we may contact you to gather further information. We will ensure that we can answer any queries and address your complaint in full. Once we have completed our investigation we will provide you with a resolution.

                        Full details of our complaints procedure which details how we deal with complaints and the steps we follow, can be found at http://www.Rossendales.com.

                        If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on the number above.

                        Yours faithfully

                        Complaints Manager

                        Comment


                        • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                          Rossendales has completed its investigation and provided a resolution.


                          14 July 2016

                          Thank you for your email dated 12th July.

                          As you are aware we act upon the instructions of NE Lincs Council to recover monies owed for unpaid Council Tax after a Liability Order was issued against you in a court of law. As I'm sure you can appreciate when a matter has reached this stage our client requires us to execute the Liability Order and recover a debt promptly and effectively.

                          We wrote to you on 11th May to advise of our involvement and offered a 14 day grace period in which the matter could be resolved without incurring statutory fees. As we received no reply the 'Notice of Enforcement' that was served upon you on 25th May advise further of our lawful involvement, the fee schedule, (set in law), that would now apply as recovery action is taken and asked you to urgently contact us. With no contact nor payment from you we wrote to you again twice.

                          I have noted from your email that you dispute your liability in respect of this matter. The Council however does not regard the matter as in dispute and their instructions to us remain to collect the full balance. Please contact us with your proposals to discharge this debt in order to prevent further action.

                          Yours sincerely,

                          Paul Davies.
                          Complaints Team
                          Rossendales Limited

                          Comment


                          • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                            Another LGO complaint submitted (11 August) raising an issue of Misconduct in Public Office.

                            If you want to upload a file in support of your complaint you can do so below

                            File 1 Misconduct-in-Public-Office-10-Aug-2016.pdf

                            What do you think the body did wrong?

                            The Council fraudulently obtained a council tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no debt owing, however, the Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario.

                            Correspondence was entered into with the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Mr Maione, to ensure that the fraud allegations were investigated internally by the audit and assurance team. Mr Maione seemed reluctant to deal with the matter and implied a threat in an email sent 18 May 2016 by stating that making allegations including perjury which were found to be unsubstantiated and/or not evidenced was a serious matter.

                            All relevant correspondence has been compiled chronologically and provided in the attachment to this complaint (Misconduct in Public Office 10 Aug 2016.pdf).

                            The formal complaint made to the Council is in fact the email dated 27 June 2016 in the attachment (page 55 & 56) in which it was complained about having no details of the investigation when asked for. It is considered there was no requirement to progress to a second stage because the Council's response made it clear in its reply dated 1 July 2016 in the attachment (page 57) that it would not be corresponding any further on the issue.

                            How has this affected you?

                            By looking the other way when the fraud brought to their attention, the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officers have enabled staff within the Council’s Revenues & Benefits to impose further unwarranted charges by appointing bailiffs Rossendales to enforce the liability order that was obtained by lying to the court about money that is not owed.

                            The injustice takes a more serious twist in that the Council had not as you would have expected considered it a narrow escape to have got away with being the subject of a criminal investigation, but emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue taking steps to recover the sum. It can only reasonably be assumed that because it was ultimately the judge's responsibility for wrongly granting permission, the council would deem it appropriate to exploit that decision regardless of being aware it was not entitled to the sum being pursued.

                            Whilst there is still no sight of a resolution, the fraudulent charges continue increasing (currently around £540) and the bailiff firm does not intend to cease enforcement on account of the monies not being owed. It is likely when the bailiffs have to refer the case back to the Council on being unsuccessful, the Council will only have available to it under the fraudulently obtained order the option of committal.

                            This failure to apply lawful and proportionate decision making, hence not taking the correct remedy has led to years of injustice mostly in the form of time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

                            What do you think the body should do to put things right?

                            It is unlikely these failings are unique to NELC, and so it would be satisfying if in respect of the inordinate amount of time that has been wasted, if lessons learned from this complaint are also learned by all local authorities and other government departments which similarly cause hardship for members of the public. Considering the destructive effect such failings can have on people’s lives (including health), there would be merit in debating in parliament the difficulties members of the public face dealing with public bodies.

                            The outcome is not one that is solely seeking to resolve the issues. It is also reasonable that an offer is made for compensation. However, any consolatory payment, whatever level will go nowhere near a realistic sum to compensate for the hundreds of hours spent as a consequence of these circumstances over several years.

                            In order that the Government is seen to be serious about reforming mismanagement in councils, it would be appropriate for parliament to consider enacting new or amending existing legislation so that matters as serious as these can be severely dealt with. Where an individual faces these prospects, the introduction of them would likely be an effective deterrent against improper conduct.

                            Such a threat could also be what is needed for a would-be offender to think twice about using their public office to carry out personal vendettas and that it is unacceptable and disproportionate to subject an aggrieved taxpayer to such gross injustice and inconvenience.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                              From: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>
                              To: <outlawlgo>
                              Sent: 12 August 2016 13:28
                              Attach: ATT00268.txt
                              Subject: Confidential: Case ID - 15020295

                              12 August 2016

                              Our ref: 15 020 295
                              (Please quote our reference when contacting us)

                              Dear Mr outlawlgo,

                              I am in receipt of the documents and the new complaint form you have sent us. This is the same issue that Mr Upjohn decide and about which we have already correspondence. So it is not a new complaint and we will take no further action.

                              To repeat what I said in my last mail to you. As a publicly funded body we cannot justify continuing to correspondence about complaints we have decided. You have been told how to ask for a review of the decision on your case. If you do that we will respond to you. We will also reply to any legal action or DPA/FOI requests. Other than that any further correspondence from you about this complaint will be read, but not acknowledged or replied to.

                              Yours sincerely

                              Andrew Hobley
                              Assessment Team Leader
                              0330 403 4725
                              LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

                              Comment


                              • Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                                Update regarding the 'sham' internal investigation into the council's shenanigans.

                                A letter raising concerns about the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officers was sent to the Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council on 10 August. ( Misconduct in Public Office 10 Aug 2016 )

                                A reply dated 11 August is obviously another fob-off letter..... ( 11 August 2016 Council Leader - Redact )

                                Our ref: RO/seh/0193

                                11 August 2016

                                Dear Mr outlawlgo

                                I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 10th August 2016 .

                                In view of the serious nature of your serious allegations against senior officers of the Council I will be referring the matter to Humberside Police. The Council will consider its position in the light of the police response and any findings arising from the outstanding complaints you have lodged with the Information Commissioner's Office. In the meantime, the Council will not be making any further comment on the matter.

                                Yours sincerely


                                Ray Oxby
                                Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council



                                Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire DN31 1HU
                                Telephone (01472) 325905
                                Email :
                                ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X